SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Brexit vote: What just happened and what comes next?
With only approximately two more months before a default no-deal "hard Brexit," the British Parliament has decisively rejected Prime Minister May's proposed plan for leaving the European Union.
There is a no confidence vote in works which, if successful, will dissolve the government and force another general election.
See also: Live: Latest as MPs debate no confidence vote
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
British Parliament Rejects (Only) Brexit Plan
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 105 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Ten years of rejection slips is nature's way of telling you to stop writing.
-- R. Geis
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:30PM (9 children)
Because we're talking about democracy at a scale that makes sense. I'm sure if put to a simple majority vote in the U.N., "Should the United States divide a couple trillion dollars between the rest of the world's countries?", that question would easily pass.
Or for your example, let's instead phrase it "Should a bunch of people in mainland Europe decide our immigration policy instead of us?"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:32PM
Whether that's the real reason people are pro-Brexit is a different matter, but widening the scope of democracy doesn't solve all problems.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:22AM (7 children)
"Should a bunch of people in London decide our immigration policy instead of us here in Lincolnshire?"
"Should a bunch of people in Lincoln decide our immigration policy instead of us here in Scunthorpe?"
"Should a bunch of people in city hall decide our immigration policy instead of us here in this particular neighborhood?"
"Should a bunch of people in a neighborhood council decide our immigration policy instead of us here on this block?"
"Should a bunch of people in a block council decide our immigration policy, instead of just me doing whatever I feel like to immigrants?"
At some point, somebody, ideally chosen via a method that shows signs that most of the governed consent to what's going on, has to make the decision. My experience is that complaining that the wrong bunch of people are making the decisions is in direct proportion to the level of disagreement with the decisions being made.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by julian on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:13AM
This is the best comment here.
People complaining that the EU isn't "democratic enough" always conveniently demarcate democracy at a level which would happen to produce the result they prefer. Imagine that. Democracy doesn't mean your preferences are always reflected in policy at all levels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:50PM
Indeed. And in this specific case: in Scotland a majority doesn't want to leave the EU but is overruled by England.
Around the time of the referendum I read the suggestion somewhere that the UK shouldn't leave the EU but England and other parts that want to leave the EU should leave the UK. I don't think the English would accept that, but to me it seems to be one of the most sensible suggestions I heard during this mess.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:22PM (4 children)
That might be true for most people that are busy being preoccupied with their own lives and so only pay attention when politics affects them in a direct (usually negative) way. If you care about improving democracy, then not so much.
Yes, but the larger the number of people they preside over, the less power over their society each of those people has. Their vote becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the total in an election as the population rises. This effect can be mitigated somewhat by having more seats in a parliament but then each seat has less influence when they vote also. In the case of the EU, the effect is magnified because citizens of any one member state can only elect a small number of MEPs and citizens cannot vote for European presidents, so the people have very little control over any legislation that may get imposed upon their state. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:25PM (3 children)
True. Which is why we have national governments, regional governments, municipal governments, etc.
More to the point, what's your alternative method of making things work well enough that the national governments and their citizens more-or-less get along? We've tried what amounts to anarchy, where each nation answers to none of the others in a constantly shifting set of alliances, treaties, etc and the end result of that was a couple of worldwide wars. We've tried what amounted to near-monarchy over the whole of Europe (the monarch being that Buonaparte upstart), and that was another big mess that got a lot of people killed. We've tried a theocratic feudal structure where the Pope more-or-less functioned as an overlord of the various rival kings and the end result of that was the Protestant Reformation and a lot of people killed.
I'll take a trans-national government in charge of the approximately 525 million European citizens and at least somewhat answerable to those citizens over any of those options any day of the week. I'm sure there will be grumbling and complaining about that government's decisions, because there's grumbling and complaining about every government's decisions, but I'd much rather that than see another Battle of Verdun. Like all democracies, as Winston Churchill put it, it's the worst form of government, except for all the others.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:49PM (2 children)
The problem is overreach. Your goal of preventing wars is an important one and it would be great if the EU was only involved in actions that were strictly necessary to achieve that aim. It's probably impossible to identify exactly what is and is not necessary for that. Ideally organizations like the UN and NATO should be responsible for that but maybe that's a case of too much stick and not enough carrot?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:58PM (1 child)
So take the freedom of movement issue: Is it strictly necessary to prevent wars? No. But it sure is extremely convenient for EU citizens who want to be able to travel around, take on new job opportunities in another country, do business, date somebody across national borders (this doesn't even have to be a long-distance thing: there are cities in Belgium less than 30 minutes from cities in the Netherlands, for instance), or otherwise interact with other Europeans. And while it's not strictly necessary to prevent wars, it does help, because it's hard to believe nationalistic propaganda about another country when you were just there a few months ago and it's nothing like what some power-hungry maniac said.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @07:53PM
Do not be so sure. When the subjects have the option of just getting up and walking away from a local crazy-in-chief, converting them into cannon fodder is MUCH harder than when conveniently trapped within national borders.